Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The more I read about John O. Brennan the more it becomes clear why he withdrew his name in November 2008 for consideration as Director of the C.I.A. For that position, of course, he'd have to undergo Senate confirmation. As Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security he won't have to deal with that inconvenience. Brennan's firm, you might remember, was involved in the security breach earlier this year in which the passport records of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain were accessed. Newsmax cites a source that says the "contractor accessed the [Obama passport] file in order to 'cauterize' the records of potentially embarrasing information."

Passports and probably birth certificate files aside, certainly there might have been some questions about Brennan's July 2008 article in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. The article is titled "The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence."

Brennan basically lays out the case why the United States should just talk to Iran nicely rather than with belligerence. He suggests we "tone down the rhetoric" and for the United States to "cease public Iran-bashing." If we don't call them terrorists anymore, they'll like us. We must also "show restraint in the face of anti-American comments" from Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials. In other words, they can call us names and we're supposed to take it but we can't call them bullies in return. Right. Got it.

He goes on to say that we should offer what equates to positive reinforcement by rewarding and offering public recognition of positive Iranian actions and individuals. Then they would all want to quit being terrorists, or sponsors of terrorism.

Brennan believes in "the establishment of a direct and senior-level dialogue between Washington and Tehran." Not only that, but he says that "These discussions must take place in private, not in the blinding glare of a public spotlight that limits the political maneuvering room of each side."

So let me get this straight. In order to repair relations with Iran, the United States should play nice, quit calling them names, turn the other cheek when they call us names, praise their good behavior and send in a senior level official to meet with them behind closed doors. Brennan even has suggestions for that official - he thinks Colin Powell would be good, or even Madeline Albright. He also suggested Al Gore.

Won't this make our ally Israel happy!

His final recommendation is that we encourage greater assimilation of the Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah into the Lebanese political system. You know, Lebanon? Those folks that are shooting rockets into Israel right now? Those guys. Isn't this sort of like giving gang-members a bunch of brand new rocket launchers? Give them the power and maybe they'll quit killing people? How exactly does THAT work?

What happened to our policy of not negotiating with terrorists? Even the New York Times reported this weekend that Iran is working quickly to the production of nuclear weapons. If we are to believe Brennan, all we need to do is ask them nicely, without belligerent rhetoric to please stop.

I'm not going to surmise what BHO is thinking, but Brennan isn't the guy that would be advising me on homeland security. He doesn't make me feel very safe.

Please, PRAY for what? That things don't get worse than they are now? How laughable. Who do you blame for our current condition? Hopefully, you're honest enough to admit that The One you voted for in the past two elections is leaving us in this mess. (yes, that's presumptuous of me to guess who you voted for, but it's an educated guess. please feel free to correct me and tell me you voted for Gore, Kerry, or Nader in '00 or '04)

I'm not opposed to the conservative viewpoint, as many of these viewpoints have true merit, but it's really tough to take you seriously when you so confidently mock liberals for voting for Obama while i sense virtually zero condemnation of the administration YOU voted into power for the last eight years. Who do you think is primarily responsible for our current condition?

Its truly amazing to see those so blinded by devotion to their party, and why? The ideologies of parties have inspired and subsequently been dismissed for centuries. Its admirable and intelligent to admit that what you hoped would work, didn't in the end.

No, this administration was not an TOTAL failure, and who cares if it was the worst or even close to the worst in history, that doesn't matter at all (history can debate that). But now, LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE, right now, after eight years of Republican held office (and two years of democratic held congress). We're in a substantial mess on many fronts. Who does this belong to? Please tell me, and then maybe i can take your comments on Obama (and his voters) seriously.

I blame the Democratic Congress for most of this crap that is going on. You have to have moral courage to admit that.

Besides, have you ever been with me 100% of the time? And I will take that as a no. Those who know me will tell you I blame the Republicans as much as I do the Democrats for this mess. I am, and always have been a registered Independent, because I can't stand either party. And since you know so much about me and can read my mind, did you ever pick up on my rants about the current adminstration? NO? Well maybe your mind reading skills aren't that good.

I don't like what is happening to this country socially and economically. We have allowed a bunch of self-serving assholes to take over. They don't give one rat's ass about this country. They only care about filling their pockets and the pockets of the people who put them there.

But if you will look, the Congress has been in control of the Dems for the past two years, and will now for at least two more. All I know is that since Nancy Pelosi has taken over with her ilk, it definately hasn't gotten better.

I am angry at the Republicans (President included) for pissing away opportunity after opportunity, because they want to go down the same road.

As for me I don't see a plug nickle's worth of difference between the parties.

So, before you climb all over my ass as far as what you think you know about, you better think again.

I guess some people can't dispute someone without making personal attacks upon the person they are disputing. But that is the way for most on the left.Personally, I think it shows stupidity, a lack of class, or both.

Why so sensitive? Nobody's "jumping all over your ass". You're on a blog, you're listing comments as anonymous, and you're upset because I make assumptions about your beliefs, or for whom you may have voted? You're first comment suggests that "We are so screwed, and I believe people who fell for the bait hook, line, and sinker will soon realize what they had done. For those who didn't fall for the bait, PRAY!".....excuse me for my assumptions, but those hardly sound like the words of a rational "independent".

Additionally, if you read my comment, i said "yes, that's presumptuous of me to guess who you voted for, but it's an educated guess. please feel free to correct me and tell me you voted for Gore, Kerry, or Nader in '00 or '04" Which, you chose not to do. So, again, you're trying to call yourself an independent and hater of both parties....so who did you support in the past two elections? It's a simple question.

So, my apologies, if i've offended you, but this is a blog. these are comments and thoughts. You're anonymous, i'm anonymous. So, why so sensitive?

Buy Me a Beer!

Try Stitch Fix!

Spring Style

I am a Conservative writer and high school English teacher in Shreveport and also work as a free-lance proofreader. I've been published at The American Thinker and had photographs published in Bayou Bucks magazine and other local publications. I like dogs better than most people.